→Evidence presented by SB_Johnny: add a bit |
|||
Line 47: | Line 47: | ||
==Evidence presented by DHeyward== |
==Evidence presented by DHeyward== |
||
I am not a party. I have a long history but this kerfuffle is not even in the top ten. --[[User:DHeyward|DHeyward]] ([[User talk:DHeyward|talk]]) 15:27, 18 April 2016 (UTC) |
I am not a party. I have a long history but this kerfuffle is not even in the top ten. --[[User:DHeyward|DHeyward]] ([[User talk:DHeyward|talk]]) 15:27, 18 April 2016 (UTC) |
||
I see now that the committee added me after [[User:GorillaWarfare]] made a statement [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gamaliel_and_others#Statement_by_GorillaWarfare] after recusing. I note that she has recently oversighted me twice and also violated BLP herself which required oversight. Her oversights of me are questionable at best (Washington Post quotes made by other editors - see her oversight at [[User:Newyorkbrad]] for details and the case talk page for her defamatory comments regarding a well-known celebrity comedian) and wikihounding at worst. Please remove me before this becomes even more embarrassing for the committee as I am smeared by a recused member. Why would I be named except for that mention when others are not? --[[User:DHeyward|DHeyward]] ([[User talk:DHeyward|talk]]) 16:35, 18 April 2016 (UTC) |
|||
==Evidence presented by SB_Johnny== |
==Evidence presented by SB_Johnny== |
Revision as of 16:35, 18 April 2016
Case clerk: TBD Drafting arbitrator: TBD
Wikipedia Arbitration |
---|
![]() |
|
Track related changes |
Any editor may add evidence to this page, irrespective of whether they are involved in the dispute. You must submit evidence in your own section. Editors who change other users' evidence may be sanctioned; if you have a concern with or objection to another user's evidence, contact the committee by e-mail or on the talk page. The standard limits for all evidence submissions are: 1000 words and 100 diffs for users who are parties to this case; or about 500 words and 50 diffs for other users. Detailed but succinct submissions are more useful to the committee. This page is not designed for the submission of general reflections on the arbitration process, Wikipedia in general, or other irrelevant and broad issues; and if you submit such content to this page, please expect it to be ignored or removed. General discussion of the case may be opened on the talk page. You must focus on the issues that are important to the dispute and submit diffs which illustrate the nature of the dispute or will be useful to the committee in its deliberations.
You must use the prescribed format in your evidence. Evidence should include a link to the actual page diff in question, or to a short page section; links to the page itself are inadequate. Never link to a page history, an editor's contributions, or a log for all actions of an editor (as those change over time), although a link to a log for a specific article or a specific block log is acceptable. Please make sure any page section links are permanent, and read the simple diff and link guide if you are not sure how to create a page diff.
The Arbitration Committee expects you to make rebuttals of other evidence submissions in your own section, and for such rebuttals to explain how or why the evidence in question is incorrect; do not engage in tit-for-tat on this page. Arbitrators may analyze evidence and other assertions at /Workshop, which is open for comment by parties, Arbitrators, and others. After arriving at proposed principles, findings of fact, or remedies, Arbitrators vote at /Proposed decision. Only arbitrators and clerks may edit the proposed decision page.
Pages restored for history only review
The following pages have been restored for history only review for the duration of this arbitration case:
- Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2010-03-17/News and notes at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gamaliel and others/Evidence/Wikipedia Signpost/2010-03-17/News and notes
- User:Gamaliel/Small hands at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gamaliel and others/Evidence/User:Gamaliel/Small hands
Evidence presented by Jayen466
On the Signpost
In the case request, a number of people expressed concern about Gamaliel's dual role as an arbitrator and one of the Signpost's two editors-in-chief. As a member of the Signpost's editorial board, I'd like to tell the community that Gamaliel's conduct with respect to editorial discussions on how to report ArbCom business (including the ArbCom election) has been exemplary. I have been genuinely surprised to find that people whose judgement I respect have fears to the contrary.
Bear in mind that Signpost staff are not getting paid for the job. They could walk away from it and blow the whistle at any time – on Wikipedia, Wikimedia mailing lists or any external blog or forum – if they were constrained by an editor-in-chief, in the process doing the exact job they've volunteered for: community journalism.
To be more specific, Signpost reports on ArbCom business are always written by people other than Gamaliel. Gamaliel has never sought to exercise any improper influence on their content. Since becoming an arbitrator, the only edits he has made to the Signpost's arbitration report have been page moves, removals of the draft template (necessary as part of the Signpost publication process), and one (1) addition of a picture. I repeat, his conduct in this regard has been exemplary.
I should also add that without Gamaliel, there wouldn't have been a Signpost the last six months or so. He has done a huge amount of work on it, and handled the considerable chore of publication single-handedly for much of this time. The community has a significant debt of gratitude to him for the job he has done.
On the Signpost's relationship to Wikipedia policy, it's readily apparent that much of the Signpost's reporting "violates" multiple Wikipedia policies: BLP sourcing, original research, "Wikipedia is not a newspaper", and so forth. You cannot write a newspaper in Wikipedia without those "violations". A statement from ArbCom on this matter would be appreciated.
As for April Fools' jokes, I for one would be happy to have the community resolve by an RfC whether the Signpost should or should not run April Fools stories involving living people, or indeed any at all. I'd like it if ArbCom could include a recommendation to that effect in its case remedies.
I was too late to add a statement to the case request. Many people said sensible things there, and there was no one from either side of the debate for whose views I did not have a degree of sympathy. On reflection though, Sarah's statements at the case request and on the associated talk page seemed the most clear-headed, and cut to the nub of the matter.
If everyone commenting here could strive to remember that everyone else, whether they're a party to the case or not, whether they're angry with Gamaliel or protective of him, is a human being deserving of patience and respect, then perhaps we could jointly arrive at something that genuinely deserves the name "arbitration" – a process that seeks insight and understanding rather than revenge and punishments. --Andreas JN466 14:33, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
Evidence presented by Kingsindian
There was no BLP violation
BLP is a policy which is aimed at protecting living persons. It is true that WP:BLP contains a statement that "BLP applies everywhere", but the standards are not the same everywhere. It is silly to claim that an April Fools joke in The Signpost violates BLP. Anyone advancing such an argument would not be consistent. It is child's play to find other cases where they wouldn't apply the argument.
A very simple example is the accompanying Trump/Wales 2016 April Fools joke. By the same standards, it is double the BLP violation: against Jimbo and Trump. Yet nobody deleted it and nobody proposed sanctions against Andreas or Montanabw. Needless to say, it would be outrageous if anyone proposed this.
Bad taste is not a BLP violation. I would be happy to see the April Fools tradition eliminated not just from Wikipedia but from the world, but that is not relevant.
DHeyward should not be added as a party
I am unsure on what basis DHeyward has been added as a party. It seems that ArbCom is trying all avenues to make this case not about Gamaliel. First, it was about BLP, now DHeyward has been added as a party. Please correct this travesty. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 15:02, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
Evidence presented by DHeyward
I am not a party. I have a long history but this kerfuffle is not even in the top ten. --DHeyward (talk) 15:27, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
I see now that the committee added me after User:GorillaWarfare made a statement [1] after recusing. I note that she has recently oversighted me twice and also violated BLP herself which required oversight. Her oversights of me are questionable at best (Washington Post quotes made by other editors - see her oversight at User:Newyorkbrad for details and the case talk page for her defamatory comments regarding a well-known celebrity comedian) and wikihounding at worst. Please remove me before this becomes even more embarrassing for the committee as I am smeared by a recused member. Why would I be named except for that mention when others are not? --DHeyward (talk) 16:35, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
Evidence presented by SB_Johnny
(high?) misdemeanors
While the BLP issue on the Signpost was hardly a high crime, it might be a high misdemeanor considering Gamaliel's status.
Super Mario
Gamaliel's reactions when confronted violated editing policies (removing templates), admin policies, and the "standards" applied to admins.
Gamaliel showed little or no contrition until it became clear that this case was going to move forward, which certainly suggests that he did not feel he would be held to account.
DHeyward as a party necessitates widening the scope
The "who hit who first" will be a deep rabbit hole.
Evidence presented by {your user name}
{Write your assertion here}
Place argument and diffs which support your assertion; for example, your first assertion might be "So-and-so engages in edit warring", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits to specific articles which show So-and-so engaging in edit warring.
{Write your assertion here}
Place argument and diffs which support the second assertion; for example, your second assertion might be "So-and-so makes personal attacks", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits where So-and-so made personal attacks.
Evidence presented by {your user name}
{Write your assertion here}
Place argument and diffs which support your assertion; for example, your first assertion might be "So-and-so engages in edit warring", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits to specific articles which show So-and-so engaging in edit warring.
{Write your assertion here}
Place argument and diffs which support the second assertion; for example, your second assertion might be "So-and-so makes personal attacks", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits where So-and-so made personal attacks.
Evidence presented by {your user name}
{Write your assertion here}
Place argument and diffs which support your assertion; for example, your first assertion might be "So-and-so engages in edit warring", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits to specific articles which show So-and-so engaging in edit warring.
{Write your assertion here}
Place argument and diffs which support the second assertion; for example, your second assertion might be "So-and-so makes personal attacks", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits where So-and-so made personal attacks.
Evidence presented by {your user name}
{Write your assertion here}
Place argument and diffs which support your assertion; for example, your first assertion might be "So-and-so engages in edit warring", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits to specific articles which show So-and-so engaging in edit warring.
{Write your assertion here}
Place argument and diffs which support the second assertion; for example, your second assertion might be "So-and-so makes personal attacks", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits where So-and-so made personal attacks.
Evidence presented by {your user name}
{Write your assertion here}
Place argument and diffs which support your assertion; for example, your first assertion might be "So-and-so engages in edit warring", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits to specific articles which show So-and-so engaging in edit warring.
{Write your assertion here}
Place argument and diffs which support the second assertion; for example, your second assertion might be "So-and-so makes personal attacks", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits where So-and-so made personal attacks.
Evidence presented by {your user name}
{Write your assertion here}
Place argument and diffs which support your assertion; for example, your first assertion might be "So-and-so engages in edit warring", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits to specific articles which show So-and-so engaging in edit warring.
{Write your assertion here}
Place argument and diffs which support the second assertion; for example, your second assertion might be "So-and-so makes personal attacks", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits where So-and-so made personal attacks.
Evidence presented by {your user name}
{Write your assertion here}
Place argument and diffs which support your assertion; for example, your first assertion might be "So-and-so engages in edit warring", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits to specific articles which show So-and-so engaging in edit warring.
{Write your assertion here}
Place argument and diffs which support the second assertion; for example, your second assertion might be "So-and-so makes personal attacks", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits where So-and-so made personal attacks.
Evidence presented by {your user name}
*****Before using the last evidence template, please make a copy for the next person*****
Preliminary statement by {your user name}
{Write your assertion here}
Place argument and diffs which support your assertion; for example, your first assertion might be "So-and-so engages in edit warring", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits to specific articles which show So-and-so engaging in edit warring.
{Write your assertion here}
Place argument and diffs which support the second assertion; for example, your second assertion might be "So-and-so makes personal attacks", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits where So-and-so made personal attacks.